Allahabad High Court
SITARA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 12 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court directed the Sub‑Divisional Officer to decide the pending restoration application within twelve weeks, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) of Baheri to hear a pending restoration application filed on 03‑11‑2025 under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner alleged that despite several dates being fixed, the application remained undecided since 2025, causing undue delay. The Court, after hearing counsel, noted that keeping the petition pending would serve no useful purpose. Without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying revenue dispute, the Court ordered the SDO to consider and decide the restoration application expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks of the certified copy of the order, and to avoid unnecessary adjournments. The petition was consequently disposed of with the said direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the Sub‑Divisional Officer to hear a pending restoration application under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
- Whether the delay in deciding the restoration application warrants judicial intervention.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 116
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- restoration application
- U.P. Revenue Code
- section 116
- delay
- expeditious hearing
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 15265 of 2026
Sitara Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 12 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dhirendra Singh, Santosh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sher Bahadur Singh
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding
the Sub Divisional Officer Baheri, Tehsil: Baheri, District: Bareilly
(Respondent No.2) to ensure the hearing of Restoration Application dated
03.11.2025 in Case No.13381/2025 Computerized Case to
No.T202512130513381 (earlier Case No.1257/2025 and 12573/2025)
Satnam Singh and others Vs. Sukkha Singh and others u/s 116 U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 and decide the same within stipulated time which
this Hon'ble Court may fixed."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid restoration
application is pending since 2025. It is further contended that several dates
have been fixed but the same has not been decided yet. He prayed that the
same may be decided, expeditiously.
4. No useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of
finally with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the
aforementioned application, in accordance with law, expeditiously,
preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production of a
WRIC No. 15265 of 2026
2
certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite
parties and giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and
without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided
that there is no other legal impediment.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
April 23, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…